GOLDHOFER

[AMFAMAN]

So, my original comment stands -- speed is an issue, almost as much as the inferior equipment.

The tractor clearly shouldn't be going 15 mph if it either can't stop, or stops so hard that people get hurt.

And no, I don't buy the argument of the company or the airport forcing you to go fast.

Eric,

Come on, you can't for a second believe that you can get a 777 across a 150' wide runway with the tail cleared for the landing plane, which often times was on a 2--2 1/2 mile final, or less than 2 minutes out, without giving it everything you got. Then comes the hard part, trying to get it to stop in less than 200', before the next runway. This of course doesn't even take into account the inclines and declines on the runways and taxiways for water runoff, which makes it even harder. If I took your advice, I'd either be dead from an accident or fired for refusing to do my job.

 

[AMFAMAN]

Lastest news report and pictures...

http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=258357#videoid=258357

 

[eolesen]

Sorry, Bob, the photo I saw only showed the front window. If it didn't stop the aircraft, then I agree -- it's a piece of dogshit and someone pissed away money on the wrong equipment.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Do Not Delay" or Expedite? You know this means only one thing and that is to move your arse now.

Regardless what the ground controller may want you to do, you're still responsible for staying within the practical limits [and not necessarily the published limits] of the equipment you're using.

If you can't carry out the instruction safely, you decline it and sit still.

I find it a little ironic that the guys who seem to be the defenders of safety feel that they don't want to exercise their ability to decline a ground controllers instruction, or that they have to follow a directive blindly knowing that it could put them at risk...

Come on, you can't for a second believe that you can get a 777 across a 150' wide runway with the tail cleared for the landing plane, which often times was on a 2--2 1/2 mile final, or less than 2 minutes out, without giving it everything you got. Then comes the hard part, trying to get it to stop in less than 200', before the next runway. This of course doesn't even take into account the inclines and declines on the runways and taxiways for water runoff, which makes it even harder. If I took your advice, I'd either be dead from an accident or fired for refusing to do my job.

I'm not disagreeing on the challenge here -- if you can't get it across safely, you sit or ask to take the long road if possible (which probably negates all the savings).

Using the right piece of equipment for the right job and properly trained people should lead to a safe operation. But no matter how safe you may be if the equipment you are using is not designed or rated for the job you are doing an accident is about to happen sooner or later.

Exactly. And the operator has to be the last line of defense. If you believe it's not capable, either by personal experience or by what others are telling you, you don't do it.

 

[AMFAMAN]

I'm not disagreeing on the challenge here -- if you can't get it across safely, you sit or ask to take the long road if possible (which probably negates all the savings).



Exactly. And the operator has to be the last line of defense. If you believe it's not capable, either by personal experience or by what others are telling you, you don't do it.

The long road or roundabout taxiway is still many years in the future at DFW, if it ever happens. Leaving or going to the hangars requires 2 runways to cross in each direction, no way around that fact. To be able to cross at a speed you are talking about would require at least a 7 - 10 mile landing final, which might happen between the hours of 1 AM and 4 AM, otherwise 2 - 3 mile finals are the norm at DFW.

 

[Crapdog]

The lawyers could have a field day with both incidences. It's funny how some college educated people have no common sense. They do not understand the value of experience. They should have listened to the mechanics a year ago. Now people have gotten hurt. How about trying it again so we can kill someone! 😱

 

[eolesen]

You're assuming the guys who made the purchasing decision are college educated...

I can't speak for the guys in M&E, but a lot of the guys doing the rest of AA's GSE purchasing were former GSE wrenches or GSE supervisors who used to be wrenches.

 

[ch53D]

You're assuming the guys who made the purchasing decision are college educated...

I can't speak for the guys in M&E, but a lot of the guys doing the rest of AA's GSE purchasing were former GSE wrenches or GSE supervisors who used to be wrenches.

I don’t think GSE had the power to sign that check. You can’t even buy a golf cart with out purchasing approval, and just so you know that takes over a year to happen.

 

[AMFAMAN]

You're assuming the guys who made the purchasing decision are college educated...

I can't speak for the guys in M&E, but a lot of the guys doing the rest of AA's GSE purchasing were former GSE wrenches or GSE supervisors who used to be wrenches.

This purchase I was told was done at the VP level. It was after all $750k a piece. I'm sure the brain childs got a hefty bonus for the projective savings. :mf_boff:

 

[The Goose]

I don’t think GSE had the power to sign that check. You can’t even buy a golf cart with out purchasing approval, and just so you know that takes over a year to happen.

We have that problem also - any capital equipment has to go through the friggin' bean counters that inevitably want the same explaination 5 times before any decision is made as to purchasing said item or not. Justification, charts, graphs, ROI studies - what these bastards want is unreal, and it's rather obvious it has nothing to do with budget considerations but justification of their jobs.

I understand the need to keep track of the bucks but why can't an individual with just a little common sense be found to put in a position of authority instead of the educated idiots we have now?

 

[Bob Owens]

We have that problem also - any capital equipment has to go through the friggin' bean counters that inevitably want the same explaination 5 times before any decision is made as to purchasing said item or not. Justification, charts, graphs, ROI studies - what these bastards want is unreal, and it's rather obvious it has nothing to do with budget considerations but justification of their jobs.

I understand the need to keep track of the bucks but why can't an individual with just a little common sense be found to put in a position of authority instead of the educated idiots we have now?

What do you want us to be run like SWA?

 

[AMFAMAN]

I understand the need to keep track of the bucks but why can't an individual with just a little common sense be found to put in a position of authority instead of the educated idiots we have now?

You're out of order Brother...How dare you expect to have someone with authority apply common sense to an issue? 😛 😛

 

[aapitbull]

You're out of order Brother...How dare you expect to have someone with authority apply common sense to an issue? 😛 😛

"AMEN" 🙄

 

[Boomer]

Sorry, Bob, the photo I saw only showed the front window. If it didn't stop the aircraft, then I agree -- it's a piece of dogshit and someone pissed away money on the wrong equipment.



Regardless what the ground controller may want you to do, you're still responsible for staying within the practical limits [and not necessarily the published limits] of the equipment you're using.

If you can't carry out the instruction safely, you decline it and sit still.

I find it a little ironic that the guys who seem to be the defenders of safety feel that they don't want to exercise their ability to decline a ground controllers instruction, or that they have to follow a directive blindly knowing that it could put them at risk...



I'm not disagreeing on the challenge here -- if you can't get it across safely, you sit or ask to take the long road if possible (which probably negates all the savings).



Exactly. And the operator has to be the last line of defense. If you believe it's not capable, either by personal experience or by what others are telling you, you don't do it.

You're assuming the guys who made the purchasing decision are college educated...

I can't speak for the guys in M&E, but a lot of the guys doing the rest of AA's GSE purchasing were former GSE wrenches or GSE supervisors who used to be wrenches.

----------------------------------------------------------

Eric,

People like you stood outside smoking ovens asking, " What Holocaust?"

 

[eolesen]

Classy, Boomer. Really. But I don't think life at AA is anywhere close to genocide...


The GSE guys I was referring to were the HDQ group that buys all the tugs, cochrans, beltloaders, etc. They guys I worked with at HDQ all had turned a wrench at one point. Can't speak for the guys who made the Goldhofer decision. That decision appears to have come out of TUL.

I understand the need to keep track of the bucks but why can't an individual with just a little common sense be found to put in a position of authority instead of the educated idiots we have now?

Because it's been abused in the past?... I had to deal with purchasing and finance for the last ten years I was at HDQ. The process might seem a little overwhelming, but it's not as bad as what I have to go thru at the new company... Building the business case is the easy part.

One of the problems with turning over purchasing for capital expense items to stations is that you start to wind up with every variation of equipment possible. Remember those wonderful Kabota tractors? That was a regional purchasing decision... Sounded great until SJC was downsized and those tractors had to be disbursed to stations on the east coast where there wasn't a network to get spare parts...

Before ITS centralized all the computer purchasing, it wasn't too uncommon to have a station manager go out to Best Buy and get PC's and printers. Sure, it's a lot quicker, but there were more than a few $3000 laptops bought by guys who had absolutely no need for one. Right or wrong, when ITS started clamping down, people started thinking twice about what they were asking for because they knew it would be questioned two or three times along the way.

And that's not a bad thing. Imagine if you were able to exercise signature authority over everything your spouse spent money on, and vice versa...

 

[AMFAMAN]

The 777 used was linked on a trip to LHR.

Didn't make that trip or any other, in fact it's still sitting in the hangar. <_<